On Sunday I went to see Mummenschanze - there is a thread on it (with my critique toward the end of the thread in "Other Dance").<P>I couldn't help but think as I watched it how crucial the lighting was. I don't know if either of you, Babs and Salzberg, have seen Mummenshanz - but for the sake of this post I will take the liberty of assuming that you have not.<P>The artists (4 of them) are in complete blackout suits - against a black backdrop. For 85% of the performance they are totally invisible - and yet they are literally one inch away from total light. The objects they hold are brilliantly lit - <P>Though lighting is always very important, in this instance it is intrinsic to the success or utter failure of the performance. <P>I can't think of a performance more profoundly dependent upon the artistry of the lighting designer. And, yes, I did give him credit in my critique.<P>Your thoughts.......

There are certainly some performances, such as the one you describe Basheva, where the lighting is obviuosly a key part of the performance. Over here the work of Russell Maliphant is often accompanied with striking and innovative lighting.<P>However, in general, I tend to agree with Deborah MacMillan's comment that, after the choreography, lighting is the key element from the artistic team, in creating the mood(s) of the work. <P>So my answer to your question is...always.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum